Staff Report: Hearing on appeal of the Hearing Officer decision to revoke Massage Establishment

130 Pages·2016·10.89 MB·English

AGENDA ITEM NO.

8A

CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM

December 12, 2016

TO: City Council

FROM: Department of Environmental Services
Police Department

SUBJECT: A HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER/CHIEF OF
POLICE’S DECISION TO REVOKE THE MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT
PERMIT [NO. 35771-01] ISSUED TO XIN WEI ZHANG, OWNER OF
CHAN MASSAGE, LOCATED AT 995 E. LOS ANGELES AVENUE #7,
AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

The City Council will have the option to uphold or overturn the Hearing Officer/Chief of
Police’s decision to revoke the Massage Establishment Permit [No. 35771-01] for Xin
Wei Zhang, owner of Chan Massage, located at 995 E. Los Angeles Avenue #7. Due to
this item being an appeal of a staff revocation of the permit, there is no staff
recommendation.

CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION

As this is an appeal of the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police’s decision, the City Manager
does not have a recommendation on the item.

BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

On January 28, 2016, the City of Simi Valley issued a Massage Establishment
Permit No. 35771-01 to Xin Wei Zhang for Chan Massage located at 995 E. Los
Angeles Avenue #7. Mr. Zhang is the sole owner of the business and a California
Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) registered practitioner. Mr. Zhang declared
one Massage Practitioner employee.

As a part of its regular inspections of Massage Establishments pursuant to Simi
Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), on February 5, 2016, Police Officers inspected
Chan Massage and found Massage Practitioners without State-issued California
Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC) licenses, employees that were not declared
nor registered with the City, a subsequently declared manager who failed to keep
records of services provided for each treatment, and a lack of on-going required
employee information. Mei Yun Zhang, Kemin Song, and Yuzhu Chu were cited
for six SVMC violations, and subsequently on April 4, 2016, pled no contest to
three violations of SVMC.

As a result of the six SVMC violations and three misdemeanor convictions, the
Police Department initiated revocation of the Chan Massage Establishment
A 5 /12-16(dw)
2
Permit as provided in the Simi Valley Municipal Code. The revocation was based
on the grounds of unlicensed personnel, failure to keep records of services,
failure to keep on-going employee information updated with the City, and the
convictions as outlined in Attachment C.

Mr. Zhang appealed the decision to the Department Head Hearing Officer/Chief of
Police as outlined in Attachment C. A hearing was held and on September 12,
2016, and after considering the testimony of staff and the owner’s counsel Mr.
Ross, the Hearing Officer upheld the revocation of the Massage Establishment
permit (Attachment A). Pursuant to SVMC, Mr. Ross appealed this matter to the
City Council (Attachment B). At its meeting of October 24, 2016, the City Council
set the hearing for this appeal for December 12, 2016.

Pursuant to SVMC, the City Council has the option to deny the appeal and uphold
the decision of the Chief of Police and revoke the permit, or to uphold the appeal
and reinstate the permit. Denying the appeal will require immediate cessation of
Chan Massage and require Mr. Zhang to surrender his permits to operate. No
new massage establishment would be allowed to operate at this location for one
year.

FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES

Background and Process

Citing concerns over a dual regulatory scheme between State massage licensing
boards and City requirements, and an increase in complaints of illicit activities, the City
Council updated Title 5, Chapter 15 related to Massage in 2012. This update required
that all Massage Practitioners operating in Simi Valley be licensed by the California
Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC). In January 2015, the City of Simi Valley also
recognized the need for updated rules, regulations, and permitting for massage
business activities and their owners; as a result of AB 1147 reinstating the City’s ability
to regulate such activities, and continued complaints of illicit activities. The City Council
subsequently initiated a moratorium on new massage businesses and owners while this
matter was studied. The City Council took these urgent steps, outlining that there was a
need for adequate measures to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the public,
provide trained and licensed personnel, and to address complaints of illicit activities
such as prostitution and human trafficking affecting the quality of life for residents and
businesses in the community.

During the moratorium, the regulations were updated to be consistent with state law and
best practices as adopted in Ordinance Nos. 1246 and 1258 (Attachment D). In
addition, the business owner permitting process was reinstated, and all business
owners were required to be background checked and apply by January 11, 2016, to
receive a Massage Establishment or Off-Premises Massage Business Permit from the
Police Department. In October 2015, staff held and recorded a workshop to provide
business owners information on how to apply for the reinstated permitting processes.
During this application window, 32 establishments and 26 independent business owners
have applied for massage owner permits, and a total of approximately 200 registrations
for owner and employee massage practitioners have been subsequently processed to
date. Traditional W-2 style employees may register at any time.

A 5 /12-16(dw)
3
As an existing establishment, Mr. Zhang applied for a Massage Establishment Permit
during the 90-day application period open during the moratorium. On January 28, 2016,
the City of Simi Valley issued a Massage Establishment Permit No. 35771-01 to Xin Wei
Zhang for Chan Massage located at 995 E. Los Angeles Avenue #7. Mr. Zhang is the
sole owner of the business and a California Massage Therapy Council (CAMTC)
licensed practitioner. Mr. Zhang has owned the business at this location since
September 16, 2013.

As a part of its regular inspections of Massage Establishments, pursuant to Simi Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC), on February 5, 2016, Police Officers inspected Chan Massage
and found massage practitioners without State-issued California Massage Therapy
Council (CAMTC) licenses, employees that were not declared nor registered with the
City, a subsequently declared manager who failed to keep records of services provided
for each treatment, and a lack of on-going required employee information. Mei Yun
Zhang, Kemin Song, and Yuzhu Chu were cited for six SVMC violations, and
subsequently on April 4, 2016, pled no contest to three violations of the SVMC.

In accordance with SVMC Section 5-15.16(b), on May 3, 2016, the City of Simi Valley
notified the business owner by certified mail of its intent to revoke the Massage
Establishment Permit for Chan Massage located at 995 E. Los Angeles Ave. #7 issued
to Mr. Xin Wei Zhang. The letter sent by Police Commander Alan Thompson, indicates
the Revocation would be effective May 18, 2016, based on the grounds of: six violations
of SVMC Title 5, Chapter 15 (Massage); three Criminal Convictions obtained by
citations at the subject establishment; and failure to provide on-going employee
information as required by SVMC. Pursuant to SVMC, Attorney Robert Ross, on behalf
of his client, Mr. Zhang, appealed the Police Department’s decision to revoke the permit
to the Department Head/Hearing Officer, Chief McCann, as outlined in Attachment C.

On September 12, 2016, the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police heard the matter of the
Department Head Appeal. Mr. Ross further asserted his grounds for appeal and also
alleged that staff did not provide adequate notice and materials to people of Chinese
descent and alleged that staff unduly focused the regulations on persons of Chinese
descent. Staff asserts that at no time during the process of regulating or permitting
Massage establishments did the applicant’s ethnicity play a role in the process or
decisions. All public notices were provided in accordance with adopted City Council
and State requirements. In fact, Planning staff took additional steps to provide a
courtesy notice of the meetings where the regulations were being considered, and held
and recorded, a Public Workshop for owners, and later viewing, should persons wish to
have the information translated. On September 28, 2016 the Chief rendered his
decision to uphold the Revocation of the permit (Attachment A).

Pursuant to SVMC, Mr. Ross appealed this matter to the City Council (refer to letter of
Appeal, Attachment B). At their meeting of October 24, 2016, the City Council set the
public hearing for this appeal for December 12, 2016.

Appeal to the City Council

As outlined in SVMC, the business owner has the right to appeal the decision of the
Chief of Police/Hearing Officer/Department Head to the City Council for consideration of
the revocation. The grounds for the appeal to City Council stated by Mr. Ross (Xin Wei
Zhang’s attorney), provided in Attachment B can be summarized as continuing to
A 5 /12-16(dw)
4
assert that violations were not relating to conduct of a sexual nature; violations occurred
in a single inspection; there is no past history of violations; and, revocation is an
extreme and drastic penalty under the circumstances. This hearing is to hear the
appeal of the Chief of Police’s decision and to render a final decision on the permit.

Response to Appeal

Staff believes that the appellant’s assertions have been already responded to during the
Chief Hearing process as outlined in Attachment C and summarized below:

Grounds for Revocation

Pursuant to SVMC Section 5-15.16(a), the Chief of Police may deny or revoke a Permit
issued for a Massage Establishment for one or more of the grounds of subsection (a),
numbers 1-13. As follows:
“(2) Violation of Chapter. The Massage Establishment Owner, Off-premises
Massage Business Owner, Operator, RMO, Managing Employee, any Massage
Practitioner, or any of the Massage Establishment's or Off-premises Massage Business'
employee(s) or contractors violated a provision or provisions of this chapter or Business
and Professions Code 4600 et seq. Although a single violation depending upon severity
may be sufficient (for example subsection (5) below), two (2) violations in any twelve
(12) month period or three (3) violations in any twenty-four (24) month period shall be
prima facie grounds for revocation or denial;
(5) Employment or Use of Uncertified Practitioners. The Massage Establishment
has employed, allowed, or permitted a person to perform Massage in the Massage
Establishment or under the sponsorship of the Off-premises Massage Business who is
not a CAMTC certified Massage Practitioner; “

In this case, the applicant had six violations of Municipal Code and three
misdemeanors. Per SVMC Section 5-15.09(d), the conduct at the facility is the
responsibility of the permit holder and, therefore, these convictions are directly
attributable to the establishment/owner. These included two cases of
unregistered/unlicensed practitioners. Therefore, the owner exceeded the one violation
threshold for unlicensed personnel as contemplated by the City Council in adopting this
ordinance. Again, the use of CAMTC-licensed personnel has been a requirement of the
City since 2012. Mr. Zhang has been an owner of the establishment since 2013 and
should have been aware of the rules and regulations to operate his business since that
time. While Mr. Ross asserts these actions are not serious in nature, staff believes it
shows an unsafe business climate that the City Council specifically in 2012 and 2015
sought to avoid, for the public’s health safety and welfare. Grounds for revocation may,
but do not have to, include those actions that involve any “moral turpitude” such as
those found in Penal Code Section 647 (a) or (b) related to prostitution or conduct of a
sexual nature.

In applying for his Massage Establishment Permit, Mr. Zhang acknowledged his
responsibility for understanding the Municipal Code, and for the actions of workers in his
facility, by his signature on the application as shown in Attachment C, including
continuing compliance. The specific basis for the revocation of Chan Massage Permit
No. 35771-01 included violations of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to SVMC Section 5-
A 5 /12-16(dw)
5
15.19, any person or entity that violates this chapter [Massage] shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor unless such offense is deemed an infraction by the City Attorney. The
Establishment Owner, Mr. Zhang, is in violation of SVMC Section 9-15.16(a)(2), in that
six SVMC violations and three criminal misdemeanor convictions were obtained against
persons working at the Massage Establishment as identified in court records and notice
of revocation (Attachment C).

These violations all show a pattern of use of unlicensed practitioners and
undocumented services and are not considered to be benign and passive in nature, and
arguably, affect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. Providing a safe and
therapeutic environment with trained and licensed personnel was an important
consideration by the City Council when it initiated its requirement for licensed personnel
in 2012, and in the adoption of the updated rules and permit processes in 2015. The
grounds for revocation specifically included:

1. SVMC Violations and Misdemeanor Convictions. Six violations and three
misdemeanor convictions are attributed to Chan Massage as follows:

a. On February 5, 2016, Mei Yun Zhang was cited at Chan Massage for not
having a State Massage Practitioner License as required by the City of
Simi Valley for all practitioners [SVMC 5-15.04(b)] and not registering for a
City-issued Massage Practitioner Identification Card (“ID”) [SVMC 5-
15.06(b)] [refer to Police Report, Attachment C, Exhibit I]. Ms. Zhang
admitted to having performed three massages on the day of citation. Ms.
Zhang is not a declared employee [Attachment C, Exhibits H, L, M, and
N], does not have a State-issued massage therapist identification card and
has not registered with the City as a licensed massage practitioner. Ms.
Zhang was convicted of failure to register for a City-issued Massage
Practitioner ID card [SVMC Section 5-15.06(b)] as shown in the Court
Report [Attachment C, Exhibit E];
b. On February 5, 2016, Kemin Song was cited at Chan Massage for not
having a State Massage Practitioner License as required by the City of
Simi Valley for all practitioners [SVMC 5-15.04(b)] and not registering for a
City-issued Massage Practitioner ID [SVMC 5-15.06(b)] [refer to Police
Report, Attachment C, Exhibit J]. Ms. Song is not a declared employee
[Attachment C, Exhibits H, L, M, and N], does not have a State-issued
massage therapist identification card, and has not registered with the City
as a licensed massage practitioner. Ms. Song was convicted of failure to
register for a City-issued Massage Practitioner ID card [SVMC Section 5-
15.06(b)] as shown in the Court Report [Attachment C, Exhibit F]; and
c. On February 5, 2016, Yuzhu Chu was cited at Chan Massage and
informed officers that he was the manager and co-owner of the
Establishment [refer to Police Report, Attachment C, Exhibit I]. Mr. Chu is
not listed as a co-owner of the Establishment [refer to Application,
Attachment C, Exhibit H]. Mr. Zhang has, however, subsequently
designated Mr. Chu as the W-2 employee manager on March 4, 2016
[Declaration of Employees, Attachment C, Exhibit L]. Mr. Chu was cited
for allowing unlicensed therapists to work at the establishment [SVMC 5-
15.04(d)] and failure to maintain a record of services provided to clients by
practitioners [SVMC 5-15.09(b)(22)] [refer to Police Report, Attachment C,
Exhibit K]. Mr. Chu was convicted of failing to comply with the operational
A 5 /12-16(dw)
6
requirements of a Massage Establishment to maintain a record of services
provided for each treatment services as required by SVMC 5-15.9(b)(22)
and (23) [Attachment C, Exhibit G (Court Report)].

2. On-going Information. Mr. Zhang has failed to provide on-going information of
the employees performing massage at his establishment as evidenced by Kemin
Song and Mei Yun Zhang having been found to be working as practitioners at the
establishment [refer to Police Reports, Attachment C, Exhibits I and J], and
having not been listed as declared employees on Mr. Zhang’s application of
January 6, 2016 [Application, Attachment C, Exhibit H], nor subsequent
employee declarations on March 4, March 8, and May 5, 2016 [Attachment C,
Exhibits L-N] where other workers were declared [pursuant to SVMC Section 9-
15.16(a)(11)]. Mr. Zhang also failed to declare Mr. Chu as a manager or
employee until March 4, 2016, despite his application and initial declaration of
himself and Ms. Lan Qing Wu as manager and CAMTC-licensed practitioners
[Attachment C, Exhibit H]. We believe Mr. Zhang’s initial application, registration,
and declaration on January 8, 2016 [Attachment C, Exhibit H] and update of his
employee list three times [Attachment C, Exhibits L-N] shows that he is aware of
the requirements to use CAMTC-licensed and City-registered personnel, and to
submit updated employee information for all employees within 10 days of
hire/change.

3. Owner Responsibility. Pursuant to SVMC Section 5-15.09(d), Mr. Zhang as
business owner/permittee is responsible for the conduct of all employees,
agents, independent contractors, or other representatives occurring on the
premises of the Massage Establishment. Mr. Zhang’s Application confirms his
acknowledgement of the requirements of the SVMC [Attachment C, Exhibit X].
Mr. Zhang was notified of the process, applied for, and obtained his Massage
Establishment Permit. Mr. Zhang is responsible to have CAMTC-licensed and
City-registered massage practitioners, declare all employees within 10 days of
hire, and have an owner or manager on site at all times. As evidenced by the
charges and convictions, Mr. Zhang did not use all CAMTC-licensed and City-
registered staff, and did not provide the required declarations and on-going
information.

Adoption of Rules and Notice

Mr. Zhang’s counsel continues to assert that the rules and regulations adopted by the
City Council were not known to Mr. Zhang. The City has in fact had regulations on
Massage Establishments since the 1980’s and CAMTC practitioner requirements since
2012. In addition however, the City provided notice by mail to Chan Massage at the
Establishment address on multiple occasions during adoption of the updated Massage
regulations. These notices included:

• Notice of the City Council meeting of August 17, 2015 regarding new rules
related to Massage [Attachment C, Exhibit Q];
• Notice of a Public Hearing on October 12, 2015 considering lifting the
moratorium [Attachment C, Exhibit O];
• Notice of a Public Workshop for Massage Business Owners held October 27,
2015 [Attachment C, Exhibit R]; and,
• Notice of a Public Hearing to consider extension of the moratorium held
A 5 /12-16(dw)
7
January 11, 2016 [Attachment C, Exhibit P].

As a matter of practice, the Municipal Code and all adopted Ordinances since the last
codification of the City’s Municipal Code are kept on-line at the City’s web site
at www.simivalley.org/municipalcode. In addition, the City has maintained a web page
related to massage since the initiation of the moratorium that can be found
at www.simivalley.org/massage. A recording of the public workshop held October 27,
2015, is also available for viewing at www.simivalley.org/massage.

The City asserts Mr. Zhang knew of, and followed, the requirements of the permit and
ordinance, obtained the necessary Zoning Clearance from the Planning Department,
applied for a Building and Safety Establishment inspection, and submitted the Massage
Establishment Application and ID Card Registrations for Chan Massage, himself, in
person at City Hall, within the timeframe allotted, as outlined in Attachment C. By
signing the Application, Mr. Zhang also acknowledged he was aware of the rules and
ongoing requirements for owning a Massage Establishment.

In addition to the notices and City Council agendas, staff reports, and videos available
online, as standard practice, all adopted ordinances of the City of Simi Valley are
published on the City’s web site www.simivalley.org (Municipal Code tab at the top).
Until new ordinances are updated on-line, they are always available on this page.
Additionally, a sub-topic page of the City’s web site has been continuously updated
through the 2015 and 2016 process, including information on the moratorium, rule
adoption, and application phases of the process on which the ordinances for all aspects
of the process including Ordinances can be found. This information can be accessed
at: www.simivalley.org/massage or www.simivalley.org/massagepermits.

Provisional/Probational Permit Request

Mr. Ross has requested that if the City considers these offenses to be sufficient to
warrant revocation, the City contemporaneously grant a Provisional Massage
Establishment Permit. Mr. Zhang’s application, however, was only considered his
“Provisional Permit” until such time as the application was approved and Establishment
Permit No. 35771-01 was issued to Mr. Zhang for Chan Massage. Provisional Permits
are not applicable to businesses/owners already in operation at the time of the
moratorium that applied during the 90-day application window. A Provisional Permit
under SVMC 5-15.24(a) specifically does not waive compliance with any other aspect of
the Massage chapter. As Mr. Zhang was issued an Establishment Permit, no such
further Provisional Permits apply. The City has no process within the Massage
Establishment Permit for a permit holder or establishment to be “on probation”. The
City may act at any time on an Establishment that has been found to be in violation of
the SVMC to revoke their permit.

While the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police and staff understand the serious nature of the
revocation, it is believed these violations show disregard for the safe practices and
professional environment the City Council enacted to achieve under the moratorium and
permitting practices, and recommend that the revocation stand.

The following alternatives are available to the City Council:

A 5 /12-16(dw)
8
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police’s decision to
revoke the Massage Establishment Permit [No. 35771-01] for Xin Wei Zhang,
owner of Chan Massage, located at 995 E. Los Angeles Avenue #7;

2. Uphold the appeal and reinstate the Massage Establishment Permit [No. 35771-
01] for Xin Wei Zhang, owner of Chan Massage, located at 995 E. Los Angeles
Avenue #7;

3. Close the public hearing and continue the item for preparation of a final
resolution containing findings supporting the decision of the City Council;

4. Continue the hearing and provide direction to staff requesting further information
on the matter.

Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.

SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION

I move to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Hearing
Officer/Chief of Police’s decision to revoke the Massage Establishment Permit [No.
35771-01] for Xin Wei Zhang, owner of Chan Massage, located at 995 E. Los Angeles
Avenue #7, upon the following findings to be placed in the resolution: (findings as
determined by the City Council).

OR

I move to adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and reinstating the Massage
Establishment Permit [No. 35771-01] for Xin Wei Zhang, owner of Chan Massage,
located at 995 E. Los Angeles Avenue #7, upon the following findings to be placed in
the resolution: (findings as determined by the City Council).

SUMMARY

Mr. Xin Wei Zhang, owner of Chan Massage, located at 995 E. Los Angeles Avenue #7,
has appealed the decision of the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police on the revocation of his
Massage Establishment Permit. Mr. Zhang’s Massage Establishment Permit was
revoked due to his responsibility for conduct at the facility that includes unlicensed
massage practitioners, failure to keep records, failure to keep updated and on-going
employee information, and three misdemeanor convictions therefor. Having stated its
desire for a safe and professional environment for healing arts, the City Council has
undertaken a moratorium to update its regulations and practices, permit existing
establishments and business owners, register employees and comply with State law
and address complaints of illicit activities and the associated effects of reported and
cited conduct at massage establishments. While the matter of revocation is serious in
nature, any violations of Municipal Code under the Massage Ordinance can result in
revocation.

A 5 /12-16(dw)
9
Revocation would ultimately result in the closure of a business. Staff recommends
upholding the decision of the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police and denying the appeal.
_________________________________ _______________________________
David Livingstone, Acting Chief of Police Peter Lyons, Director
Police Department Department of Environmental Services
Prepared by: Lorri Hammer, Principal Planner/Zoning Administrator
Stephanie Shannon, Police Commander
INDEX Page
Public Hearing Procedure ............................................................................... 10
Resolution ....................................................................................................... 13
Attachment A – Decision of the Hearing Officer/Chief of Police ...................... 15
Attachment B – Appeal Letter, Acknowledgement, and Scheduling ................ 18
Attachment C – Letter of Response to Appeal for Department Head/Chief of
Police Appeal Hearing and Exhibits ....................................... 19
Exhibit A Initiation of Revocation Letter dated May 3, 2016
Exhibit B Certified Mail Receipt for May 3, 2016 Letter from Mr.
Zhang and Property Owner
Exhibit C Massage Establishment Permit No. 35771-01
Exhibit D Title 5, Chapter 15 (Massage) contained in Ordinance
No. 1246
Exhibit E Criminal Convictions obtained against Mei Yun Zhang
Exhibit F Criminal Convictions obtained against Kemin Song
Exhibit G Criminal Convictions obtained against Yuzhu Chu
Exhibit H Application Package of Xin Wei Zhang on January 8,
2016, for Chan Massage Establishment Permit,
Practitioner Registration for Mr. Zhang, Zoning
Clearance, Employee Declaration, and Building
Inspection Request
Exhibit I Police Report for Mei Yun Zhang
Exhibit J Police Report of Kemin Song
Exhibit K Police Report of Yuzhu Chu
Exhibit L Employee Declaration of March 4, 2016
Exhibit M Employee Declaration of March 8, 2016
Exhibit N Employee Declaration of May 8, 2016
Exhibit O City Clerk Affidavit of Public Notice and Mailing for
meeting of October 12, 2015
Exhibit P City Clerk Affidavit of Public Notice and Mailing for
meeting of January 11, 2016
Exhibit Q Department of Environmental Services Affidavit of
Mailing for meeting of August 17, 2015
Exhibit R Department of Environmental Services Affidavit of
Mailing for Public Workshop held October 27, 2015
Exhibit S Title 5, Chapter 15 (Massage) contained in Ordinance
No. 1249
Attachment D – Ordinance Nos. 1246 and 1258 – Massage ....................... 231
A 5 /12-16(dw)
10

PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURE

HEARING DATE: December 12, 2016

1. MAYOR: This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider
an appeal filed by [Appellant] on the decision of the
[Department Head] to [revoke Permit No(s).], [Description of
Permit].

May we have an oral report on this matter by staff?

2. STAFF: (Report)

3. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : (Questions of staff and staff responses)

4. MAYOR: Does the Appellant wish to be heard on this matter?

5. APPELLANT(S): (Comments)

6. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : (Questions of Appellant and Appellant responses)

7. MAYOR: Does staff wish to be heard on this matter?

8. STAFF: (Comments)

9. ANY COUNCIL
MEMBER : (Questions of staff and staff responses)

10. MAYOR: Is there anyone in the City Council Chamber wishing to be
heard on this matter?

11. AUDIENCE: (Comments)

12. MAYOR: Does staff desire to respond to any comments or issues
raised?

13. STAFF: (Response to comments and additional City Council
questions)

14. MAYOR: Does the Appellant desire any rebuttal?

15. APPELLANT(S): (Rebuttal)